Standing Committee D

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

International Development Bill [Lords]

Clause 1 - Development Assistance

Amendment proposed [22 November]: No. 5, in page 1, line 16, at the end to add the words— 
`(4) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual report on the performance of the development assistance programme against stated poverty reduction targets and shall lay a copy of the report before Parliament.'.—[Mrs. Spelman.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Win Griffiths: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking new clause 1—Reduction in poverty: co-ordination within government—
`(1) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to promote a focus on reduction in poverty throughout all government departments and agencies in their relations with developing countries. 
 (2) The Secretary of State for International Development shall, jointly with ministers responsible for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, prepare and lay before Parliament an annual report on the work done in pursuance of the arrangements made under subsection (1).'.
 I believe that Dr. Tonge was speaking, so I call her to continue.

Jenny Tonge: Thank you, Mr. Griffiths, but I think that I had finished my remarks. I cannot remember my last sentence, but I think that it was pretty conclusive, as hon. Members will be pleased to hear.

Win Griffiths: Very good. The Minister, then.

Hilary Benn: Thank you, Mr. Griffiths.
 I am sure that no hon. Members will need reminding of the debate that we almost concluded on Thursday afternoon. I have the opportunity to respond to the points raised by the hon. Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). 
 First, I address the question of the need for an annual report, which is the substance of one of the amendments. As the hon. Member for Meriden acknowledged, when I lifted the weighty copy of the annual report and waved it in her direction, the Department for International Development publishes an annual report, the latest copy of which relates to 2001. 
 It might help if I point out that that departmental report is published under an arrangement established in 1991, when the Treasury required each Department to prepare an annual report as part of the public expenditure survey process. The Treasury sets out the core standard requirements each year and, together with the Public Accounts Committee, takes a close interest in the reports and their formats. Before 1991, each Department's activities were described in a chapter of the public expenditure White Paper. The current system was introduced in response to concern from Parliament that more information was needed about the activities of Departments. That concern may lie behind the hon. Lady's comments, and I am sure that all members would agree that such a need exists. Following the establishment of the Department for International Development as a separate Department in 1997, we began to publish our own report. 
 One might describe the requirement of 10 years' standing that an annual report is made as a relatively long-standing requirement. To that extent, the requirement is part of our unwritten constitution. After the report is published, it is scrutinised by the Select Committee, as the hon. Member for Meriden knows. This year, it contains a lot of information relating to the international development targets or millennium development goals, and to the public service agreements. 
 The hon. Lady referred to degree of detail, and to under-five maternal mortality and the percentage of children in primary education. I guide her to page 26 of the Department's annual report, which reports indications of the progress that we are making against the public service agreement in respect of those three targets, in relation to the United Kingdom's top 30 development partners. The report contains a lot of information, and we are keen that information of that type should be available to the House for scrutiny. 
 I address, too, the point raised my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) about the need to follow up the benefits of spending—a point that was referred to by the hon. Member for Meriden. I accept my hon. Friend's point, but we must clearly strike a balance between our desire to follow through the process and to audit the use to which the money has been put—in other words, to achieve the accountability that all hon. Members would like—and the need to do so in a way that constructs systems that do not overload the Government of the developing country. 
 That problem became apparent to me on my recent visit to Malawi. We are the largest donor to that country, but there are other bilateral donors and multilateral institutions as well. In countries where capacity within government is a big issue—Malawi is a good example, not least because of the scourge of HIV/AIDS on a range of occupations in that country—we must consider the extent to which donors can unwittingly impose an excessive burden, because of the different forms of accountability that we seek to our own Parliaments and institutions. To ensure that we do not create difficulties for the developing countries instead of assisting them to make progress, we need to work further on ways to bring together donor activity and donor accounting and accountability systems. 
 The hon. Lady drew attention to the issue of the effectiveness of the spend. We will produce a more comprehensive review of the effectiveness of our development assistance in a new publication early next year, which will be called ``Development Effectiveness Review''. It will not only assess the performance of continuing projects, but bring together the results of evaluation studies. We all rightly have an interest in ensuring that the money that we invest is used in the most effective way possible.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about the development of methodologies to assess how effective the funds that we deploy in other countries are. However, I acknowledged that the collection of information could prove onerous, not least because the individuals required to undertake the task may not have had appropriate training. They may not be there at all. I meant that it was right to set about identifying the limits that prevent nations from producing such information. We know that aid has sometimes been given but used for purposes other than those specified. That was my point, and I am pleased that some progress will be made in tackling such a difficult task.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, as I think that we are at one. My comments about the further review of effectiveness are an acknowledgment of her point.
 New clause 1 relates to joined-up government, the second matter that we are debating. I accept the case made by the hon. Member for Meriden, and point to two examples where the Government try to live up to the desire for joined-up government. One is our action on Sierra Leone. I came into the Department as a new Minister, and one of the first meetings that I attended was about Sierra Leone. It was striking to sit around the table and see representatives of DFID, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office working as a group, in as joined-up a way as one could imagine, to try to ensure that we tackled the problems that face the country. Each representative of a Department had a specific contribution to make, but we worked as a team and shared information. That is a living, breathing example of the hon. Lady's point. 
 The second example was the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry before she went to the Doha summit, which the hon. Member for Meriden acknowledged was a welcome development. The statement was almost entirely about the development potential of the summit. It was a perfect example of what we seek to achieve. Twenty or 30 years ago, it would have been difficult to envisage the person in her position making a statement about future trade talks that related so much to the interests of developing countries. That is another indicator of the extent to which the need for a joined-up approach to development issues is reflected in practice.

Jenny Tonge: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I accept that there have recently been welcome examples of co-operation between Departments. None the less, I support the hon. Member for Meriden because we need a provision in the Bill. It is all very well benevolent Ministers being prepared to co-operate with their colleagues in other Departments, but that may not be the case in another Administration. We should, therefore, make it clear in the Bill that we expect such co-operation.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Lady because she pre-empted what I was about to say about the wording of the amendment and about why the Committee should not proceed with it.
 First, a duty should be imposed as a matter of law when that is necessary to achieve the goal in question. Secondly, it should be cast in sufficiently precise terms to make it plain that it is being met. I do not mean this as a slight on the drafting of new clause 1, but the duty ``to promote a focus'' could lead to difficulties with definitions. What does promoting a focus mean and how would the term be interpreted when deciding whether a future Secretary of State—I note the hon. Lady's point in that regard—has fulfilled that requirement? 
 The only way to improve the wording would be to formulate specific directions as to how Departments must carry out their business. Even if we could do so, it would not be a desirable step. We might end up placing constraints on the co-operation that the new clause seeks and which all members of the Committee support.

Jenny Tonge: I am sorry, but this is beginning to sound like an episode of ``Yes Minister''. The Minister is using a very circumlocutory way of saying, ``We do not want the measure in the Bill because it will restrict us too much.'' If he cannot accept the wording, will he give us an assurance that a suitable phrase will be inserted on Report?

Hilary Benn: I do not think that I can. For the reasons that I am trying to give, it is hard to impose an obligation of joined-upness on the Government in legislation. I say that with all sincerity, and I understand the argument. Representatives of two of the other major parties are in the Committee, and I hope that a joined-up approach would be the policy of any future Government. As I am trying to explain, we shall not advance the cause that we all support by using a form of words that creates more difficulties than it solves.

Julian Lewis: Instead of the words ``promote a focus'', the Minister might accept the word ``emphasise''.

Hilary Benn: I am sure that that is a helpful suggestion, but, again, I foresee difficulties of interpretation. [Interruption.] Indeed, but the two interventions that I have just taken illustrate the difficulty of finding a legislative form of words that encapsulates our objective sufficiently succinctly and accurately, as I am trying to explain. On that basis, it is probably better not to write into the Bill provisions that will get us into difficulties further down the road. The Committee should accept the assurance that I hope I gave the hon. Member for Meriden that a joined-up approach is indeed Government policy and that we want it to be carried forward.

Caroline Spelman: As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, the problem with the Minister's reply is that it is based on current practice and the disposition of the present incumbents in post. For that reason I am not convinced about the annual report issue. There could be a difficult year in which it would not be so attractive to the Department to publish details of how it was faring against stated poverty reduction targets. We want to press the amendment to a Division.
 I am prepared to accept that there may be a weakness in my drafting of new clause 1. I am sure that the Minister will accept that the task is difficult without the resources at the Government's disposal. While I shall not press the new clause, I am disappointed. The Minister has given examples of recent, better practice with respect to joined-up government. We have all been working in the spirit that has prevailed since 11 September, with everyone minded to co-operate. I have seen evidence of Government Departments working together as never before with respect to the war and the Afghan crisis, but we all know what human nature is like. Before we know it we may have slipped back into our old ways. Perhaps the good will that leads us to work together, in a more joined-up way, will not be so strong further down the road. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Development assistance for

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Rosindell: I apologise that I shall have to leave the Committee in a few moments. I have secured an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall about Zimbabwe.
 I want to make some brief remarks about clause 2, particularly about the overseas territories. I find it strange that we continue to treat the people of British overseas territories differently from those in the mainland of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that any hon. Members would want their constituencies to be treated differently from others, but we do that to the overseas territories. That is wrong, and the issue needs to be addressed, not only in the Bill but in Government policy in general. To suggest that overseas territories should be part of international development and that overseas aid should be given to, say, the Falkland Islands or Montserrat in the same way that we give aid to foreign countries, is wrong. It is wrong to lump them all together.

Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Rosindell: Not at the moment.
 I ask the Minister and the Government to reconsider their approach to dealing with people who are as British as all of us here today.

Jim Knight: I was not planning to say anything on the clause, but I am moved to speak in response to the hon. Gentleman's last few words. The clause clearly treats British overseas territories differently from other developing nations and makes an exception of them. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the British Overseas Territories Bill is currently going through Parliament. The hon. Gentleman can use the opportunity afforded to him by debates on that Bill to address whatever issues he wants relating to British overseas territories. That seems straightforward to me.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) for raising the issue. As he will be aware, there are historical reasons for the nature of our relationship with the British overseas territories. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) has just pointed out, another piece of legislation is before Parliament which aims to change the position on UK citizenship for citizens of the British overseas territories.
 The overseas territories are a disparate group of countries. They range from those with a very high per capita GDP to those that are developing countries—or, to be more accurate, developing overseas territories—in every sense. I accept, and it is reflected in the Department for International Development's policy, that the overseas territories wish to take greater responsibility for their own affairs. When I recently attended the annual meeting of the overseas territories consultative council, that was a clear feature of the remarks made by the territories' representatives. They want to have greater responsibility for governing themselves and to take decisions about their own future. 
 We wish to support that, but in the context of our continuing assistance, which has to take account of the varying circumstances among the territories. Some have every possibility of economic development and self-sustaining success, while others have very little possibility of that. The Bill will allow the British Government to have regard to particular circumstances in making decisions on assistance. I hope that that is helpful. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Humanitarian assistance

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 8, after `assistance', insert—
`and, where necessary the means for reconstruction,'.
 We will try to be helpful this morning in moving quite quickly through the clauses. We are conscious that the debate on clause 1 was extensive and covered a wide range of issues. It is my intention to focus on our amendments. 
 The amendment is important and topical. It aims to allow the Secretary of State to provide the means for reconstruction following natural or man-made disasters or other emergencies in addition to providing general assistance immediately following such an emergency. Reconstruction is becoming an increasingly common need following disasters and conflicts. We want to make the ability to provide for such reconstruction explicit in the Bill. Countries that have recently required reconstruction include East Timor, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. 
 Following the conflict in Afghanistan, there is a clear need for reconstruction, which will require assistance and resources from the outside world. It is now estimated that that reconstruction may cost up to $30 billion. I am concerned about how that money will be provided. We should not get into a position in which the new Afghan Government have to borrow so much money from the World Bank for reconstruction that they end up with unpayable debts. Many aspects are in need of urgent attention, including the rebuilding of the infrastructure—or, indeed, the provision of infrastructure. We are becoming aware that Afghanistan has little infrastructure in place. An integral part of that will be the establishment of a broad-based Government, on which subject we hope for some success in Bonn today. 
 We are concerned that without explicit mention of reconstruction in the Bill, provision for the means of reconstruction may be neglected. Reconstruction obviously takes a long time—probably beyond the short-term memory of the disaster. The amendment would ensure that the fine words spoken and the promises made to countries that face man-made or natural disasters are borne out in practice, especially as reconstruction may take a long time.

Jenny Tonge: When I first read the amendment, I was struck with shock and horror. There is no question that reconstruction is needed after natural and man-made disasters, but man-made disasters are usually the result of war. The Balkans, East Timor and Afghanistan are good examples of that. I agree that huge reconstruction is usually needed; and I wonder where is the Marshall plan for the Balkans that we heard so much about during the Kosovo war.
 During the Kosovo war, I constantly questioned which budget would be used to pay for reconstruction. If a country is damaged as a result of military action, is it right to expect the Department for International Development, which should be focusing on the relief of poverty and on sustainable development, to offer assistance with reconstruction after something that it could be argued was the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office? 
 I have great reservations about the amendment. I cannot support it because reconstruction costs should clearly be paid from another budget than that of DFID, which should have as its emphasis the relief of poverty.

Jim Cunningham: I fully concur with the hon. Member for Richmond Park. In truth, if we were to include reconstruction in the clause, the entire humanitarian aid budget could be taken over by one country's need for reconstruction. That is not the purpose of the clause. It deals with humanitarian assistance. Of course, reconstruction is vital; but I agree that it must be paid from another budget.

Hilary Benn: I believe that all members of the Committee agree with what the hon. Member for Richmond Park said about reconstruction. However, as she will be aware, clause 3 provides for assistance to be given as an immediate response to disasters or emergencies in a way that may not necessarily contribute to a reduction in poverty. That is precisely why clause 3 is separate from the test that applies to general development aid provided under clause 1.
 We should do nothing to put at risk our capacity to respond speedily and flexibly to humanitarian crises, but to achieve that the exception has to be carefully defined. That is our worry about the amendment. Reconstruction after immediate emergencies can cover a wide range of activities, and it can take a long time, but it is not easily distinguishable from normal processes of sustainable development. The restrictions that we place on the purposes of development assistance should apply equally to reconstruction. 
 One reservation that we have is that the amendment could be used to allow the tying of assistance to the reconstruction or rehabilitation of infrastructure. Clause 3 is not tied to the definition set out in clause 1. We had an extensive debate about the Bill's poverty focus, and about promoting welfare and sustainable development, and concern was expressed on both sides of the Committee that tied aid should not be permitted. Clause 3 is not subject to the test laid out in clause 1, so the amendment would allow a future Secretary of State to say that assistance was being given for reconstruction in order not to be fettered by the provisions of clause 1. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Meriden to withdraw the amendment.

Caroline Spelman: I hear what hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are saying, but they can see that I am driving at the fact that we have not always been good at reconstruction. We seem not to have learned the lesson: we may intervene in countries, as we have just done in Afghanistan, but the ordinary people there will never believe that we are serious about meaning them well if we are not prepared to repair some of the damage left behind—even if it was not all the result of military intervention and even if much of it preceded the events of 11 September.
 The amendment seeks to probe the Government on where in legislation we can show our resolve; we must ensure that when we talk about Marshall plans for other countries, we see them through. However, I do not want to undermine the purpose of clause 3, which is to allow the Department to respond to disasters rapidly and with resources. For that reason, I shall not press the amendment. However, we shall probably seek another opportunity to raise the question of reconstruction, because deep down, I am not satisfied that it is properly catered for. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 11, at end add—
`(2) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that humanitarian assistance provided under subsection (1) which is provided via other agencies or bodies shall comply with the standards as to effectiveness and probity set down in the Sphere Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response.'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 14A, in page 2, line 11, at end add—
`(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the provision of humanitarian aid shall make no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinion.'.

Caroline Spelman: Amendment No. 7 aims to ensure that humanitarian assistance provided by agencies and bodies complies with internationally agreed standards. My thinking has been shaped by recent events, and aid agency reports that the refugee camps in Pakistan, where a big influx of Afghan refugees was expected, do not meet internationally accepted standards. When I looked into the matter, I discovered that the aid agencies were signed up to minimum international standards on disaster response known as the Sphere standards. I feel strongly that this is an important aspect of the Bill. Taxpayers' money provides humanitarian assistance, but we will obtain a bad name if the standard of assistance is not acceptable. I am sure that we can all remember the public response to the sight of refugee camps in the Balkans, which clearly did not meet acceptable standards; we were discomfited by the pictures and said that we should not let it happen again. The amendment would ensure that internationally accepted standards were achieved in refugee camps.
 In the White Paper ``Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century'', the Government said that a multitude of factors involved in humanitarian work underlined the importance of international co-operation based on sound principles. Hence the Government were going to encourage a ``system-wide agreement'' on common performance standards and a ``code of ethical conduct'' for organisations involved in humanitarian work and would seek to implement guidelines already agreed within the OECD. The Government said that they would work for and co-operate with the more efficient multilateral humanitarian system, building on the organisations and NGOs. Acceptance of the Sphere standards would allow us to put those fine words into practice. 
 The Sphere project was launched by a group of humanitarian agencies in 1997, the year that the White Paper was published. The project has developed a humanitarian charter and a set of universal minimum standards in core areas of humanitarian assistance, including water supply and sanitation, nutrition, shelter and site planning, food aid and health services. The aim of the project is to improve the quality of assistance provided to people affected by disasters, and to enhance the accountability of the humanitarian system in disaster response. 
 Those aims are entirely laudable, and I hope that the Minister might feel that it would be possible to incorporate such an improvement in the Bill.

Hilary Benn: First, on amendment No. 7, I want to talk about the structure of the Bill. Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to provide humanitarian assistance in response to a disaster or other emergency. Assistance under the clause is not limited to ``development assistance'', as defined in clause 1, nor is there any requirement for the assistance to be likely to contribute to the reduction of poverty. In fact, clause 3 does not use the term ``humanitarian assistance'', which is as a consequence not defined in the Bill. Instead, the clause refers to ``natural or man-made'' disasters or other emergencies, and limits the purpose of assistance to alleviating their effects on the population of a country outside the United Kingdom.
 Amendment No. 7 would place the Secretary of State under a duty to apply standards of ``effectiveness and probity'', with specific reference to the Sphere standards. DFID supports those standards, to which we are signed up. However, as hon. Members may be aware, they provide a detailed manual on the running and operation of humanitarian assistance and refugee camps. 
 How desirable is it that the Bill refer to those detailed standards? It would be unwise for it to do so. What would happen if the Sphere standards were overtaken by new standards? We would be stuck with the legislation and its specific references to Sphere. That could put a Secretary of State in difficulty. 
 I accept the motivation underlying the amendment, but it would be better not to include such a reference. The Secretary of State can provide that specific conditions are attached to the aid that we give, which allows us the means to lever up standards and to encourage the following of requirements such as those in the Sphere document. 
 I understand that amendment No. 14A is grouped with amendment No. 7.

Caroline Spelman: The two amendments are separate but I understand why they have been linked, as they both deal with the incorporation of the idea behind the Vienna proclamation of the international conference of the Red Cross. It was made in 1965, and the idea behind it was that acceptable standards should be reached and there should be no discrimination when public money was given to provide humanitarian assistance to refugee camps.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful for that explanation.
 I want to make a further point about the Sphere standards. We could write into the legislation the fact that we subscribed to them, but we should remember that we did not draw them up. If they were to be changed in future by their authors in a way of which we did not approve and to which we did not consent, we would be committed to follow standards that we might not support. That is a further reason why it is undesirable to accept the amendment. 
 The second point relates to amendment No. 14A and the need to impose strict standards of impartiality. The Secretary of State already imposes standards on those who carry out activities on her behalf and is accountable to Parliament for the exercise of those powers. DFID devotes significant resources to ensuring that its systems and procedures and those of its partners are effective and transparent. All direct and indirect expenditure is subject to scrutiny by our internal audit department, the National Audit Office and Parliament, through the Select Committee on International Development and the Public Accounts Committee. 
 It may help the Committee if I say that the Secretary of State has consistently affirmed her commitment to impartial humanitarianism and has made it clear that we do not see humanitarian assistance as a political lever in situations of conflict and conflict management. We have published an ethical framework for our humanitarian assistance, which includes the principle of impartiality and a commitment to seek to relieve the suffering of non-combatants without discrimination on political or other grounds and with priority given to the most urgent cases of distress. 
 To embed such principles in legislation would, however, require our response to every disaster to be formally appraised to ensure compliance with strict impartiality. Amendment No. 14A could make it impossible for DFID to contribute to a multilateral relief effort in a complex emergency in which different donors focused on different geographical areas and, therefore, on different groups of people in need. The legal duty of impartiality that the amendment would impose could also open up the possibility that individual decisions about humanitarian relief could be subject to challenge in the courts. One group might believe that it should have received a larger share of assistance than it did. 
 Both amendments would create difficulties by placing statutory constraints on the Secretary of State's response to a crisis, which could prevent her from taking quick and effective action. They could also place a layer of bureaucracy on top of the process, which, as all members of the Committee will agree, we do not need in humanitarian emergencies. The hon. Member for Meriden and others who saw the Select Committee on International Development take evidence from relief agencies on the current emergency in Afghanistan will have heard Catherine Bertini of the World Food Programme, Carol Bellamy of UNICEF and others praise the speed and flexibility of the DFID response. The Committee should think carefully before unintentionally imposing layers of bureaucracy or the potential for legal challenge on top of a system that is designed to enable the Secretary of State to take decisions—and, therefore, the country to respond—as swiftly and effectively as possible to humanitarian emergencies. Such decisions will be taken bearing in mind the commitment that the Government have clearly given to act on a non-discriminatory basis and with regard to the issues that the hon. Lady rightly raised. I think that we are at one on the issue, but given the practical difficulties, I urge her to reconsider pressing the amendment to a vote.

Caroline Spelman: I have listened carefully. My desire to bring guarantees into the quality of our humanitarian assistance may arise from my inability to see such assistance in practice. I am sure that the Minister is aware that I have unsuccessfully sought the Secretary of State's authorisation to visit the refugee camps in Pakistan, although the Select Committee is there this week and will return with more information.

Hilary Benn: The hon. Lady referred to the Secretary of State's authorisation. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State passed the hon. Lady the security advice that she has been given. I do not want the Committee to get the impression that it is up to the Secretary of State to decide whether the hon. Lady goes.

Caroline Spelman: As I am sure the Minister appreciates, the practical point is that I have not been able to go, but the Select Committee has. If I had been able to go, I might have been able to discover what happens on the ground. Our money is being sent to provide humanitarian assistance, but hon. Members who served on the Select Committee will be aware of the practical problems that the relief agencies mentioned. For example, in some of the established refugee camps the water is 400 m down through granite. The provision of adequate water and sanitation is one of the standards that I sought to secure through the amendment. On the other hand, I do not want to slow the process of providing aid in a disaster.
 It occurs to me that another route may be possible. I have never seen the conditions attached to an agreement that has been struck between a Department and an aid agency that spends public money in the provision of humanitarian assistance. It might be reassuring to see what is contained in the conditions to which the Minister referred. That would be another way of achieving an assurance that we seek to enshrine good standards. 
 Another way of achieving some assurance on the provision of humanitarian assistance to acceptable international standards would be to provide an annual report. It is good that we have forced the issue of the annual report, because that report could contain an appraisal of the standards to which humanitarian assistance was provided. However, I entirely accept that the Sphere standards might be altered in aspects on which we might not agree, which is the weakness of accepting a set of international standards that are agreed outside the country and without consultation with the Government. 
 For that reason, and because I do not want to obstruct the provision of humanitarian aid in an emergency, I will not press the amendment to a Division.

Edward Leigh: Before my hon. Friend asks to withdraw the amendment, may I ask the Minister a question? Let us imagine that the Minister wanted to provide specific aid to a racial minority such as the Karen people in Burma. If the amendment that we are debating were made to the Bill, would it prohibit him from doing so? Would it prevent him from helping a specific group who were persecuted because of their race by the military junta? I am thinking of amendment No. 14A, of course.

Hilary Benn: Amendment No. 14A relates to humanitarian assistance. To be honest, I am not sure whether the particular help to which the hon. Gentleman refers would come within the definition of humanitarian assistance when the Bill is enacted. I think that it probably would not fall into the category of assistance in case of ``natural or man-made disaster''. It would be a form of assistance under clause 1. Therefore, I am not making that argument in resisting the amendment.

Caroline Spelman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Meaning of ``assistance''

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 36, leave out from first `assistance' to end of line 39 and insert
`means assistance in the fields of economic development, administration and social services, consisting in the making available of the services of any body or person, training facilities, the supply of material, or the results of research undertaken in any such fields.'.
 The amendment would classify economic development as an important element of technical assistance. The description of technical assistance in the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 sets out the definition of technical assistance to include assistance with economic development. The Bill makes no reference to economic development. 
 Technical assistance is part of British development assistance. Our capacity to help in this area is also the part in which British people have most confidence. Valuable technical assistance has been provided to developing countries, including know-how and skills that they would not otherwise have had. We also believe that, as one of the world's premier financial centres, the UK has a unique role to play in assisting developing countries with their economic development as well as their social development. For example, Afghanistan has no financial institutions, which will make it difficult for it to secure the necessary assistance for its reconstruction. That is a good example of a situation in which our help will be very much needed. 
 A survey of opinion for the Department for International Development, involving 1,800 people chosen at random, shows that just 18 per cent. thought that providing financial assistance was the most important way of reducing poverty. In a survey of children, the Department found that the majority of support for development was for technical assistance, such as the training of nurses, doctors and engineers, rather than for financial aid. One of the reservations that the public have about the provision of financial assistance is whether it reaches the intended recipient, which takes us back to the delicate question referred to by the Minister earlier, of auditing what happens to assistance. I entirely accept the Minister's point that the process should not be so onerous for the developing country that it becomes burdensome, but there is no doubt that the public are anxious about money not getting to the desired recipient, especially when it is subsequently proved to have been used in an abusive way or to have been dispatched to the overseas bank account of someone for whom it was not intended. 
 Economic development is also crucial to the future of the environment. The globalisation White Paper states that 
``Poverty and environmental degradation are often linked. Economic development gives countries improved access to new, less resource-intensive and less polluting technologies. Over the last fifty years, it has been more closed economies—such as the former Communist countries—that have had the worst record of industrial pollution and urban environmental degradation''.
 If the Government feel strongly about the global environment, they must put economic development back into the meaning of ``technical assistance''. If the developed world seeks to take the lead on tackling some of the fundamental problems of global warming, we must give assistance to developing countries to help all of us to tackle that kind of global, environmental problem. 
 The globalisation White Paper also highlighted the importance of multinationals in economic development. They can contribute significantly to economic development in host countries through their technology, specialised skills and ability to organise and integrate production across countries, establishing marketing networks and accessing finance and equipment on favourable terms. If the Government support the role of the multinationals in contributing to economic development, they should also include economic development in the meaning of ``technical assistance'' in the Bill, so that Government, too, can support developing countries through technical assistance in technology and specialised skills. 
 The Bill comes at an important conjuncture in business terms, since many multinationals are increasingly aware of their need to demonstrate corporate social responsibility and responsibility towards developing countries. Many of them have appointed a corporate social responsibility director. When multinationals are becoming more conscious of their need to demonstrate, in practical terms, their assistance to the developing world, it is all the more important to include a statement of economic development in Bill for the purposes of encouragement.

Hilary Benn: Not for the first time in the Committee, I agree with everything that the hon. Lady has said about the importance of the issues that she raised. Clearly, economic development and technical assistance in an appropriate form is essential to enabling developing countries to prosper and succeed in the future. The Bill in its current form permits all such assistance to be given. My reservation about the amendment relates not to the intention behind it but to its unintended potential consequences, which arise from the way in which it is drafted.
 The purpose of the definition in clause 5(2) is simply to describe the form and nature of the technical assistance. It would therefore be undesirable to attempt to use it as a definition that restricts what technical assistance may be provided for. The distinction is important. If one restricts what assistance may be provided for, everything not mentioned in the amendment may be deemed as something for which assistance cannot be given. 
 Although the definition in the amendment appears inclusive rather than exhaustive, it cuts across the purposes of development assistance set out in clause 1(2). It does not strictly prevent other forms of technical assistance, but the specification of some types and forms of assistance begs the question why others are not mentioned. 
 As for the proposed list of forms of assistance, the amendment would—I am sure that it is unintentional—remove the power of the Secretary of State to give assistance by way of scholarships under clauses 1 and 2. The way in which the amendment is worded would cut out clause 5(2)(b), which reads: 
``is provided in the form of a scholarship''.
 That paragraph would be removed if we were to agree to the amendment, although doing so would not affect the separate powers set out in clause 14(5). 
 The lack of the word ``know-how'', which qualifies the basis on which services, training and the results of research are to be provided, also opens up the meaning of ``technical assistance'' to a substantial and unwarranted degree. I accept the point that the amendment makes, but the supply of material is provided for in clause 5(1)(b), so its repetition in the amendment is unnecessary. 
 I accept the intent and the spirit in which the amendment was tabled, but it would be undesirable to accept it for those practical reasons.

Norman Lamb: I agree with the Minister. The amendment would unnecessarily restrict what might be possible and desirable in terms of technical assistance, so the Liberal Democrats would oppose it.

Caroline Spelman: We are probably splitting hairs over words and their interpretation, as we certainly did not intend to cut out the benefits of scholarship, which we all recognise as an important form of development assistance. I did not see that as incompatible with offering services to any body, person or training facilities.
 ``Know-how'' is a colloquial word that we all understand, but it is none the less imprecise. I want to bring some precision to the Bill. The fundamental point is that the amendment was not intended to restrict the assistance that could be provided. We have encountered the problem before of making a Bill more precise, so that people would understand what it involved more readily, but in doing so coming across the pitfall of reducing the original scope. That was not my purpose, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Financial assistance

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 6, at end insert—
`(2A) The value of loans made available to a country by way of financial assistance shall not, taking one year with another, amount to more than ten per cent. of development assistance to that country.'.
 This is a probing amendment, and I am sure that the Minister will understand the spirit behind it. It seeks to prevent countries from running up substantial debts to our country by limiting the proportion of development assistance provided to them as loans. The amendment would seek to make it certain that development aid was mostly provided in grants. The relevant provisions in the Bill have been altered since its first appearance, but we want to reiterate our concern that the new drive to grant loans to developing countries could mean their getting into debt again. That is why I want to ensure that the Department is limiting the grant aid and loans that it can give to any one country. We are concerned that British taxpayers should get value for money from the loans. The Government must be sure that payment is guaranteed and forthcoming and they must undertake proper risk assessment. 
 We are also concerned about the countries that are eligible for DFID loans. Do the Government plan to lend to projects in countries that have failed to repay debts owed to this country in the past? 
 We have not debated debt relief to any great extent so far in considering the Bill, but it is an important aspect of the Department's work. Through the Jubilee 2000 initiative, with which many hon. Members were associated, we all learned a great deal about the vicious cycle in which developing countries borrow money that they are in no position to repay, and about the heavy burden of such unpayable debt. 
 We are pleased that the debt-relieving process has been successful in the majority of the countries for which it was envisaged, but I remain concerned about the capacity of some of the relevant countries to prevent the same thing from happening again, partly because debt relief can tackle the symptoms but not the cause of the accumulation of debt in the first place. I have already referred once this morning to what I fear is an impending problem for Afghanistan—the need to borrow a lot of money from the World Bank to fund reconstruction, which will result in its becoming yet another heavily indebted country. 
 The amendment enables us to press the Minister about the general question of unpayable debts accruing in developing countries, and about what thought he has given to that question in the context of the Bill. It is not immediately apparent that the Bill contains more safeguards against some of the fundamental problems that we learned about from Jubilee 2000.

Norman Lamb: It seems to be a continuing theme of my remarks to say that, while I share the aspiration behind the amendment, it might have the unattractive consequence of constraining the Government in unintended ways. In some cases it might well be appropriate to exceed the 10 per cent. barrier, and I wonder why 10 per cent. should be fixed upon, rather than any other percentage.

Caroline Spelman: It is a probing amendment.

Norman Lamb: I appreciate that, and because it has potential unforeseen consequences, although we probably all support the spirit of it, we oppose the amendment.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meriden for raising the question of debt relief by way of this probing amendment, and I acknowledge the spirit in which she spoke to it. The issue is important for developing countries, as hon. Members will know. It might help the Committee if I clarify the fact that the development aid given by the United Kingdom is almost always in the form of grant. Most of the debt that concerns the United Kingdom Government is in the form of Export Credits Guarantee Department loans. Clearly, however, the international financial institutions that we support, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, give support in part as loans.
 As the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) pointed out, the figure of 10 per cent. is arbitrary—and I understand that it was given for the purpose of stimulating debate. We mean to resist the amendment because it might place an artificial fetter on the Secretary of State in deciding the appropriate proportion of loan support. 
 On the principle of the matter, however, the hon. Member for Meriden is of course entirely right. This is a really big issue. Owing to the drive, effort and political will that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development have brought to the question of debt relief, real progress has been made in the international community. That is also in part a result of the highly indebted poor countries initiative. I, too, pay tribute to the contribution that Jubilee 2000 and many other campaigning organisations made to the achievement of that progress on debt relief, because without that campaign the Governments of the world would not have taken the decisions that they have. As the hon. Lady will be aware, 24 countries are part of the process, which will deliver for them debt relief worth $53 billion. That is by any measure substantial. I accept the point that she made about needing to keep the matter under review as, under current economic circumstances, concern is inevitably being raised about the impact of the state of the world economy on the continuing ability of those and other developing countries to deal with their debt problems. 
 We need to keep up the pressure on other developed countries and continue to encourage them. In addition to the extent of debt relief that HIPC provides, the Government have announced the writing off of all the debts owed to the United Kingdom by 41 of the world's poorest countries. That is one area in which we are giving a clear lead, and I am sure that all hon. Members welcome it. We want to encourage other countries to follow that example, as that would add further force and strength to the argument for debt relief. 
 I believe that we are at one on the principle that we are trying to achieve. Government policy is clear, and has enabled us to make good progress, with the support of all the parties represented in the House. I hope that we can sustain and develop that progress long into the future.

Caroline Spelman: The amendment was a probing amendment, and I am glad that the Minister took it in that spirit. It enabled us to flag up our concern about whether sufficient tools are in place to help countries to get off the treadmill of constantly re-accumulating debt. Again, we might be able to address our effectiveness as a country in reducing the cycle of debt accumulation by allowing the Department's work to be examined in its annual report. One may take a snapshot of a country at a particular time and believe from that picture that the debt has been relieved, but that country may be gradually accumulating more debt. The process tends to be an on-going one. Some instrument for analysing how well countries are tackling their underlying debt accumulation would enhance the Department's work.
 As I have been assured of the Government's good intent on the point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Arrangements with third parties

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 31, at end add—
`(3) The Secretary of State shall ensure that, taking one year with another, not less than 15 per cent. of development assistance given under section 1 is distributed through charities and other non-governmental organisations specialising in development.'.
 This is another probing amendment, which would place on a more stable financial footing the Government's relationship with charities and non-governmental aid organisations specialising in development. It would ensure that development assistance provided through charities and non-governmental organisations could not fall below 15 per cent. of the total development assistance, and would help to build strong support for development and act as a check against over-centralising Government. 
 The percentage is stated merely as part of a probing amendment, but we strongly believe that it is important to create the right balance in terms of the work of NGOs. We are concerned about any drift away from working with NGOs towards providing more assistance directly to Governments of developing nations, because we often seem to lose accountability for money given in that way. Some bad examples of funds given to developing countries that have ended up in Swiss bank accounts have arisen out of the direct provision of aid to Governments. It is a simple fact of life that some Governments are corrupt. 
 The developed world has found it difficult to keep a handle on aid given directly to Governments. By comparison, giving money through NGOs, especially those based in this country, provides a good opportunity for accountability, analyses of the way in which money is spent and the capacity to check that it has been spent as NGOs say that it has. 
 NGOs have a good record of rolling out projects and keeping their administrative costs at a low level to ensure that nearly all the money is used in the project for which it was envisaged. We believe that, as a nation, we are blessed with especially strong NGOs that enjoy a good reputation abroad for being effective in global poverty reduction, which is the purpose of the Bill. Charities and NGOs are more than service providers, and they should be fully supported in the Bill. They are important partners for the Department, and we would like to see that fact recognised as part of the legislation. 
 Aid distributed by UK-based charities and NGOs amounted to £195 million in 2000. That is roughly 8 per cent. of the departmental budget. We would like their role in development to be boosted and their involvement increased. The figure of 15 per cent. is hypothetical, but by suggesting it we seek to express our desire for them to be more rather than less actively used by the Department. An increase in Government funding for charities would involve more people directly or indirectly in development programmes and projects, so support for development would increase. 
 Charities are successful in this country in raising money in appeals and giving clear evidence of the work that they undertake. That is popular with the public. To understand that popularity, we need only think of examples of big gift days such as Comic Relief day, when a great deal of publicity is given to the work that charities do in the developing world. We want to see the Government endorse that by a reference to the work of charities and NGOs in the Bill and, where possible, by allowing them to do an increasing amount of work.

Tony Cunningham: The problem with the amendment, as with many of the Opposition's amendments, is that it is prescriptive. Aid is not about protecting British charities. I spent some time in Eritrea, where the Government concluded that its dependence on charitable organisations as well as the United Nations and other organisations meant that many white faces were seen in Land Rovers driving around with nice badges on the side, which was not particularly what they wanted. So the Eritrean Government threw out all the NGOs. They feared that they would become dependent on foreign aid.
 That is just one example. My point is that every country is different. The arbitrary figure of 15 per cent. might work in one country but not in another. The important thing is to ensure that the aid that is sent is as effective, and as well used, as possible.

Norman Lamb: We are sympathetic to the motivation for the amendment, but not necessarily to the effect that it might have. The hon. Member for Meriden argued that the amendment would place charities on a more stable financial footing. Although we all want that, it cannot be a direct purpose of the Bill, which must be directed towards the purposes set out in clause 1. I pay tribute to the vital work of charities and NGOs, but it must be wrong to set an arbitrary limit of the type suggested.
 It must be our ambition to empower the recipient Governments through the development of plans for the use of the aid. It must be right to empower them as much as possible to be responsible for the aid, rather than to impose it on them. For those reasons we oppose the amendment.

Tom Clarke: Like my hon. Friends, I understand where the hon. Member for Meriden is coming from. We all share enormous regard for the aid agencies and NGOs. Of course Governments do not behave as well as they should. The input from the organisations concerned is crucial. However, I wonder whether the hon. Lady's objective would be secured if we accepted the amendment. I do not think that it would.
 The hon. Lady described the percentage as hypothetical, but once a provision is included in legislation it ceases to be hypothetical and becomes statutory—an obligation. The things that she argued for, with some conviction, with respect to reconstruction, would suffer. From my limited experience of visits to northern Iraq and Kurdistan, I would say that the enormous transformation that I saw there was in the main due to the United Nations and its various agencies. 
 The NGOs and charities had a role, but I should be very surprised if that involvement came anywhere near 15 per cent. Therefore, sticking to the amendment would inhibit the hon. Lady's objectives with respect to reconstruction. We all appreciate the vital role of charities and NGOs, but I think that even the hon. Lady would not want to impose the straitjacket of that 15 per cent. figure on the Bill and on the activities of Government, NGOs, United Nations agencies and others.

Hilary Benn: This has been a useful debate, giving the Committee the opportunity to tease out some of the issues that the Department—and any Government—grapples with regularly in deciding the most appropriate form of development assistance to give. Incidentally, the power under the Bill to support NGOs is clearly set out in clauses 1 and 8.
 The Government obviously have the power to fund those organisations. As the hon. Lady acknowledged, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, civil society has an important role to play in eliminating poverty. We channel a substantial proportion of our resources through United Kingdom civil society groups. The hon. Lady referred to the £195 million paid out in the year ended 2000. That is 8 per cent. higher in real terms and 17 per cent. higher in cash terms than in 1996–96, and it is a rising trend. That figure should be compared with the £170 million that we gave the World Bank and the £151 million that we gave the United Nations for the same period. 
 It is important to note that, because those figures relate to UK civil society groups, they do not capture the substantial sums that we channel through civil society groups in developing countries; Bangladesh is a good example. We are supporting organisations such as BRAC and Proshica, which are working in primary education, primary health care and micro-credit, and we are in the process of launching a programme in Bangladesh to enable, encourage and support civil society organisations in that country to engage more in society, and to enter into dialogue with the Government about what is needed in order to further development. We have no argument about the important contribution that civil society organisations have to play but, for reasons that other hon. Members have rightly alluded to, the Government feel that it would be wrong to prescribe an artificial 15 per cent. limit. 
 I want to mention a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, who is not currently in her place: the decision on where best to give that support. I appreciate her argument about the difficulties of corruption, which continue in some places, but the view is increasingly taken that if the Governments of developing countries are evidently committed to making progress on the reduction of poverty, the provision of education, the promotion of health care and so on, and have in place credible mechanisms for doing so, it is right and proper that donors, ourselves included, should be prepared to given them budget support. It is a very practical way of supporting those Governments to help them acquire the means to enable the development of their countries to take place. 
 The Government's view is that it should not be a contest. It should not be a fight between the different means of promoting development. It should be about forming a judgment on each country's particular circumstances; as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) rightly said, the circumstances will differ. It is therefore necessary to have flexibility in the legislation, and the Secretary of State needs the discretion to exercise his judgment appropriately. In the end, it is right to weigh up all those circumstances, and to decide which is the most effective form of aid and assistance, so that we can achieve the objectives that we are all signed up to.

Caroline Spelman: It has been an interesting discussion; that was one reason for moving such a probing amendment. I have heard what I wanted to hear—that there is a rising trend in the provision of funding to NGOs and charities. I hope that my thesis that it will continue proves true, because the Department's review of the effectiveness of development assistance—an important exercise—will make apparent how effective the NGOs and charities are. I am encouraged to hear that the trend is rising. A number of hon. Members have placed on the record the high regard in which the work of those organisations is held. It was important to state that during our debates.
 The hon. Member for Workington said that, in the eyes of the Governments of some developing countries, the way in which the NGOs had conducted their work had not been good. In the short time that I have held this brief, many NGOs have taken that lesson on board. For example, it is plain that in Afghanistan they provide an increasing amount of assistance through local partners, who conduct themselves with greater sensitivity to the local population, mindful of ways of behaving that can send entirely the wrong signal about the spirit in which help is given. That was an important point to bring out in the debate. However, the amendment was a probing one, which has allowed us to touch on the relationship between the Department and NGOs and charities. I am satisfied that the Government intend to continue growing that relationship, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 15A, in page 3, line 31, at end add—
`(3) The arrangements made by the Secretary of State with third parties shall include a separate specific amount to be used for administrative purposes only.'.
 We can probably discuss this probing amendment relatively briefly. The amendment is designed to ensure that we dwell for a moment on the subject of containing the amount of public funding spent on administration. I am sure that all hon. Members will remember a lot of public disquiet relatively recently about the amount of money that is spent on the administration of development assistance. 
 Charities in particular have had to become much more assiduous in that regard and account for the percentage that they spend on administration. I believe that we all understand why such procedures are necessary. The public were concerned that too much of charities' and taxpayers' money was being spent on the administration of projects and that, as a result, less was being spent on the relief itself. The amendment is designed solely to ensure that, as time dulls the memory of that hiatus, we do not overlook the importance of containing the cost of administration.

Edward Leigh: As the Minister knows, I have a lot of time for the way in which he is attempting to deal with many of the amendments, but I hope that in dealing with this one he will not come out with his usual blanket comment. Saying, ``The aims of the hon. Member for Meriden are laudable, but I could not possibly put such a specific injunction in a piece of legislation,'' is, of course, perfectly acceptable. The Minister is quite right. That is why the amendment is intended only to probe. One cannot frame legislation in such a way that it tethers Ministers' hands by determining that they must provide a certain amount of money to be distributed by charities or that they must ensure that charities involved spend only a certain amount on administration; everyone accepts that.
 However, I hope that the Minister will not simply dismiss the amendment, but will accept it as a probing amendment and use the chance that is being offered to him in this short debate to deal with many people's serious concerns about the amount of money that charities spend on administration. Many people believe that, of the money that they give—the criticism may be unfair; I do not claim to be an expert in such matters—too much is spent on administration and too little goes to the world's poor. 
 The Minister has a real opportunity to tell us in more detail what the Government are doing to counter that perception, how they are applying pressure to charities and how charities' practice is developing. What proportion of charities' spending is spent on administration, how are things improving and what can the Department do? I hope that we may have a short, positive debate on those matters.

Tony Cunningham: I want to place on the record my utmost respect for British NGOs and charities. I have had experience of their work in many developing countries. They do an incredible job in very difficult circumstances.
 The amendment draws attention to a problem that we have encountered before. On one hand, we demand that everything must be whiter than white and of the utmost probity, with full audits, annual reports and so on, but on the other we say, ``For heaven's sake, cut back on administration.'' We want to spend less on administration, because we want more money spent on what it needs to be spent on in the developing world. There must be a balance. That is the problem, and that is the judgment that the Minister has to make. 
 Unfortunately, I have some experience of European aid. To some extent because of corruption in parts of the world, everything has been tightened up so much that millions of euros are never spent. The work that needs to be done is not being done because of the administrative burden. The question is one of judgment and balance.

Julian Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendment is phrased to give the Minister precisely the flexibility that he needs? When he looks at a third party's record, he can decide whether the proportion of money allowed for administration is relatively high or low.

Tony Cunningham: I do not think that the amendment gives the Minister that flexibility, but the clause does. It allows him to make the judgment and balance the administrative burden that such organisations have to bear against ensuring that the bulk of the money is spent in developing countries.

Win Griffiths: I call Mr. Lamb.

Norman Lamb: I have nothing to say.

Hilary Benn: For just a nanosecond, I was tempted to follow the example set by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, but if I had done so I should not have been able to respond briefly to the points raised by the hon. Members for Meriden and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman has enabled me to reduce the length of my contribution by accepting, as did the hon. Lady, that the amendment was a probing one. There would be practical difficulties in imposing a fetter, not least of which in certain circumstances would be the time and effort involved in deciding the appropriate sum to be spent on administration in relation, for example, to humanitarian relief. I shudder to think of people negotiating on that issue while those waiting for the relief wondered where on earth it was.
 I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about charities. In the end, it is clearly for the charities to determine that they use the money that they receive as effectively as possible to their own system of governance, auditors, board of trustees and so on, as well as to the people who give generously to a wide range of charities that support development work. We would all concur with that, and we want to encourage it. 
 What my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said on Europe gives me an opportunity to draw attention to what is going on inside the European Community at the moment. A process is taking place to ensure that the substantial amount of aid that we give, in terms of our assigned contribution and that of other European Community member states, is used as effectively as possible, that the administrative costs are kept as low as possible, and that the maximum outcome in terms of improved opportunities for people in developing countries is achieved. As far as the European Community is concerned, we are in the middle of a process with the jury still out. Reforms and structures have been put in place, and we all want to see those changes deliver in the long term, for precisely the reasons that the hon. Lady outlined when she moved the amendment. 
 It is clearly essential that we keep the administrative costs of DFID as low as possible. Our general practice is to build a specific and identified sum for administrative costs into our arrangements with third parties, whether they are NGOs as we discussed in relation to the previous amendment, the UN, other intergovernmental bodies or private sector consultants and contractors. The amounts to be allocated for administrative costs are determined in negotiation, taking into account the nature of the task and the body in question. When we give unearmarked contributions to an international organisation, we make considerable efforts through its governing body to ensure that it is transparent about its administrative costs and keeps them to a minimum. When, for example, an international body on which we have representation discusses its budget for a forthcoming year, we pay particular attention to the impact of administrative costs on its operation. 
 As for the percentage spent on administration, I am advised that it ranges from about 5 per cent. to 12 or 13 per cent., depending on the organisation and the nature of the particular project. However, I am grateful to the hon. Lady and the other hon. Members who raised the issue.

Edward Leigh: The percentage range that the Minister gave us is very large. I am interested in this subject and the overseeing role played by the charity commissions. The Minister may have been a bit disingenuous when he said, ``It is up to the charities themselves, and to their trustees.'' The public do not know what is happening; charities are driven, after all, by people who work full time for them and are involved in administration. They draw salaries.
 The wide range of administration costs is interesting and perhaps we might learn more on the issue—if not now, perhaps on Report.

Hilary Benn: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that if he wants to discuss the matter further on Report, I will be happy to do so and to provide as much information as I can.
 I did not intend to be disingenuous in saying that it was a matter for the charities themselves. I merely reflected the fact that they were responsible for their own governance. I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the extent of interest in the way in which charities operate and to what degree the money that they raise is spent on administration. Charities, however, are independent, free-standing organisations. The Government may say that it is in all our interests that organisations involved in development aid ensure that they spend as effectively as possible and minimise administrative costs. The Department for International Development is responsible for its own development aid, must demonstrate that that is being done and can encourage others to do so. However, it is simply a statement of fact that charities themselves have responsibility to ensure that the objective that the hon. Gentleman and hon. Lady have set out is adhered to.

Caroline Spelman: It has been useful to debate this probing amendment, because I have learned from it something that I did not know. The range of percentages spent on administration is interesting, and if we had not had the debate I would still be in the dark on that fact. I do not know whether those figures are published anywhere.
 Tantalisingly, at the end, the Minister said that there must be consistency between what the Government themselves do and what they expect third parties to do. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the administrative costs of Government-funded initiatives. That would create a new degree of transparency, which would help to deal with the public's concern, to which I alluded, that their money is spent on the projects for which they intended it. The public accept that a reasonable percentage must be spent on administration, but they would find it interesting to know how the process is undertaken and what the outcome is. 
 I took on board the point made by the hon. Member for Workington about the need to strike a balance. We were originally asking for more diligent auditing of where our money went and what it achieved, recognising that that comes with a certain administrative burden. Of course that balance must be struck, but I would reassert that there is a need to check thoroughly how the money is spent. That will inspire the public to go on being as generous as they are and allow this country to enjoy a good reputation for providing aid effectively. 
 My purpose in moving the amendment was to initiate a discussion on the matter. We have done so, and I am satisfied. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Arrangements with third parties

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 16A, in page 3, line 35, leave out from `agreements' to end of line 2 on page 4 and insert
`consistent with the aims of this Act set out in sections 1 and 3'.
 This is a simple amendment. It is designed to simplify clause 9. We had an extensive debate on the Bill's aims, as set out in clauses 1 and 3. I was looking to provide a more specific application of those aims; my previous amendments would have added another five subsections. I thought that it would simplify the Bill if clause 9 condensed the aims set out in those clauses. They do not need to be reiterated.

Hilary Benn: I will try to brief. The hon. Lady has said that the amendment is simple. The difficulty is that it could have a number of undesirable effects, depending on how the wording was read. If it was interpreted in a narrow way, it would ensure that statutory bodies could act only under clauses 1 and 3 and therefore that they could enter into and carry out agreements using development assistance provided by the Secretary of State only under those clauses, and that it would be channelled to them under clause 8. Clause 9 is intended to allow statutory bodies to engage in activities in other countries that promote sustainable development, improve the welfare of people or alleviate the effects of disasters using resources from anywhere—their own, the Secretary of State's or someone else's.
 The other consequence that could arise from a narrow interpretation of the amendment would be that the statutory bodies listed in schedule 1, though not those able to act in other countries under their existing powers, could not make agreements to work in the overseas territories under clause 2. It would be rather strange to include a provision that would impose the strict poverty criterion, from which assistance to those territories is generally exempted, only on assistance provided to them through the statutory bodies. For instance, one of the tourist boards listed under schedule 1 might wish to work with one of the overseas territories. It would be unfortunate if we imposed a stricter requirement on it to give that assistance than we impose on ourselves by virtue of clause 2. 
 For those reasons, I shall urge the Committee to resist the amendment if it is pressed to a Division.

Caroline Spelman: We have no desire to make life any more difficult for British overseas territories than it already is. That would have been an unforeseen disadvantage of my attempt to simplify the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (4).

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 18, in page 4, line 16, leave out subsection (6).

Caroline Spelman: This is something that we are concerned about. International development is not a devolved responsibility, and we were a little surprised to find that the Bill required the Secretary of State to give consent to Scottish statutory bodies only with the approval of Scottish Ministers and to Welsh statutory bodies only with the approval of the National Assembly for Wales. We do not see the need for such a provision. It is not that we are opposed to devolution; it is here, and it is working for those areas for which devolved responsibility is agreed, but international development is not one of them. It seems to us to be devolution by stealth. It also, surely, increases the bureaucracy of providing assistance. I fail to see why a simple conversation cannot take place between the Secretary of State and the equivalent person in Wales or Scotland to clarify the benefit or otherwise of granting decisions on statutory bodies in those countries.

Ann McKechin: DFID has correctly identified development education as an essential part of its work. Development education affects the school curriculum, which affects the work of the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly. The Department carries out a great deal of development work. It is in active contact with schools and civic communities and forums. It holds forums, as the hon. Lady may be aware, throughout the country. As a result, it is involved with the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly. That is why the provisions were included.

Caroline Spelman: I am a bit surprised to hear that that is the purpose behind the provisions. I do not think that people reading them would immediately spot that. The provisions would create a wider power, under which a huge amount of approval seeking would have to go on. The purpose behind our amendment is to reduce rather than increase the amount of bureaucracy that surrounds the involvement of other statutory bodies in the provision of development assistance. We have spent a lot of time discussing how we want to make assistance more effective, ensure that it gets there quickly and is successful when it gets there.
 We want to ensure that not too much time is spent pushing papers around before such assistance is given. For that reason, I remain rather unconvinced that subsection (4) should remain in the Bill. The education-related matters, such as what is expected under the national curriculum and how that is interpreted in Scotland, could be dealt with through the Department for Education and Skills. The provisions will open the floodgates to a huge amount of additional bureaucracy. The questions could be resolved by conversations that must in any case take place among the relevant Ministers in Wales and Scotland and the Secretary of State in England.

Hilary Benn: The hon. Lady is right that international relations and development assistance are, in general, reserved matters for the UK Government, but the issue, as the amendment demonstrates, is slightly more complicated than that. Schedule 5(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, which none of us have before us—so no one can gainsay what I am about to tell the Committee—clearly places competence with Scottish Ministers on matters relating to the provision of such assistance by Scottish bodies. That is because Scottish Ministers are responsible for ensuring that the bodies listed in schedule 1 of the Bill carry out their domestic duties effectively. How could they assure that when the bodies could, in an extreme case, have their attention diverted abroad at the behest of the Secretary of State for International Development?
 By the same token, although there is no similar statutory provision in the Government of Wales Act 1998, the National Assembly has to be able to account for the activities of Welsh bodies. That is why clause 9 includes provisions safeguarding the interests of Scottish Ministers and of the National Assembly. As the hon. Lady acknowledges, the amendment would have the effect of removing the need for the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers—or, as the case may be, the National Assembly—about activities undertaken under the Bill that relate to statutory bodies that fall within their jurisdiction. It would also remove the need for the devolved Administrations to determine whether the statutory bodies under their jurisdiction should be empowered to act under clause 9. 
 The amendment would therefore run counter to the spirit and the letter of the devolution settlements reflected in the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The affected provisions have been drafted to respect the settlements, because the Bill will provide for consultation and consent. Knowing what I do about devolution and the passion of many hon. Members for the subject, far be it from me to suggest that we interfere in the settlement by agreeing to the amendment.

Tom Clarke: That was a wonderful peroration, which almost persuaded me not to bother speaking at all. I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Minister said. This part of the Bill seeks to recognise the decentralisation that already takes place, of which I understand that we are all in favour. Were we not to recognise that, we would not accept that the Scotland Act 1998 ever happened.
 The hon. Member for Meriden suggested that the Department for Education and Skills should have some say in how development education was conducted in Scotland. 
Mrs. Spelman indicated dissent.

Tom Clarke: That was my interpretation of what the hon. Lady said. If she did not mean that, what is the point of the amendment? The Bill is designed to confirm what already takes place under the 1998 Act.

Julian Lewis: If international development and the assistance given under the Bill is a reserved matter, it is a reserved matter—full stop; end of argument. If a Government tried to channel some international development assistance through bodies subservient to the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, surely it would be for the Parliament and Assembly to decide whether they wanted those bodies to play a role in international development? Having decided that, they should not then be allowed to second-guess every time that the Government, with the reserved power in the Bill, wanted to channel some assistance through those bodies.

Tom Clarke: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I find that argument disingenuous. It has been argued that charities and NGOs should have responsibilities, an argument that I have accepted, but we are not prepared to confirm—I emphasise that word—the responsibilities that the House has devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. As we decided to devolve such matters, we have the right to take them back. That is not what is proposed in the Bill, which recognises the reality of the 1998 Acts on Scotland and Wales.
 To say that we should simply confine all such matters to DFID was never the intention even of those who warmly support the Bill. No Department is more concerned about decentralisation than DFID. The existence of the Department's offices in East Kilbride are a wonderful example of job dispersal in the civil service, with wonderful work done there for the whole United Kingdom. The Department has warmly embraced decentralisation. To go back on that via the amendment would send the wrong message. It would be most unwelcome not only to Scotland but to the UK, which believes in decentralisation, believes that it is compatible with internationalism and believes that we should honour what was said when Parliament passed the Scotland Act 1998.

Norman Lamb: I must confess that I am not intimately acquainted with the statutory provisions to which the Minister referred a moment ago.

Hilary Benn: I am just acquainting myself with them.

Norman Lamb: It seems eminently sensible and appropriate that consent should be sought and given before such expenditure is undertaken, so I oppose the amendment.

Chris Ruane: Do Scottish and Welsh Conservatives support the proposals of the hon. Member for Meriden?

Caroline Spelman: Of course I have spoken to both, but through the shadow Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales in conversations around the shadow Cabinet table.
 To satisfy the concern of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), there is no question but that we accept devolution. However, we see limits to it, and foreign affairs and international development are reserved matters. Our concern is that the clause departs from that principle, and the issue of development education in schools seems to be a tangential reason for opening that whole debate.

Hilary Benn: It might be helpful if I tell the Committee that schedule 5(7) to the Scotland Act 1998 is an exception to the general reservation of international development to the United Kingdom.

Caroline Spelman: It is interesting that the Minister did not use the example of education in his defence for treating the Bill in this way. Someone mentioned realism, but the reality is that the majority of non-governmental organisations and charities operate on a UK-wide basis.

Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: No. We have discussed the point at some length, but we shall just have to accept that we do not agree. For that reason, I shall press the amendment to a Division.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 10 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Interpretation

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 8, line 21, at end insert
` ``sustainable development'' has the meaning given in section 1.'.
 The Opposition are trying to be helpful to the Government, as a definition is provided of ``sustainable development'' in clause 1(3). For a long time, much debate has taken place about the definition of sustainable development and it would certainly be helpful in relation to the interpretation of the Bill, and the work that it aims to do, to have that definition. I thought that it would be useful to include that in the list of interpretations in clause 17. 
 I have heard many debates on the Floor of the House in which an imprecision seemed to exist about the definition of sustainable development. Now that we have a definition, I thought that we should use it.

Hilary Benn: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for deploying what might seem an arcane argument in resisting what is clearly intended as a helpful amendment. In fact, the Bill does not seek to define ``sustainable development''. That is an important starting point for the argument.
 Clause 1(3) states: 
``For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) `sustainable development' includes''—
 as the word ``includes'' suggests, that is not a definition. The clause is worded in that way for precisely the reason to which the hon. Lady referred in her brief opening remarks. There continues to be a wide debate about what sustainable development means and, in drafting the Bill, the Government were anxious to ensure that they did not allow that question of definition to be seized by those who took a particular environmental or economic perspective. 
 We have taken this approach because we recognise that it is a controversial term that gives rise to a lot of debate. We believe that poverty can be eliminated only through sustainable development, which clearly involves a range of economic, social and other environmental factors. The balance of those factors, however, must be determined in the context of the needs of the poor people that the assistance in question aims at meeting. It would not be appropriate for the clause to imply that the Bill defines sustainable development, because it does not seek to do so.

Norman Lamb: The lawyer in me—that was my role until 7 June—raises the same objection as the Minister has given. A meaning to the phrase is not given in clause 1, so it seems inappropriate to refer to one in this clause.

Caroline Spelman: That is a shame. I thought that we were making some progress in defining the term. I thought that it was a good definition in that, if we were struggling to make the balance between the environmental and economic cases, it was a helpful approach to ask whether assistance would generate
``lasting benefits for the population''.
 That is surely the acid test and something that most people, on whichever side of the argument they stand, can understand. 
 It is a shame that we have backed away from what I thought would be a defining moment in the development of the policy. If no one agrees completely on the meaning of the phrase, it is harder to have the debate. The phrase is bandied about a great deal in debate and conversation and people sound as if they know what they mean by it, but we are clearly not at the point when we can define it. I regret that, because the movement towards an interpretation of sustainable development would be practical in the context of the Bill. However, as it is not a definition in the eyes of the lawyers present, I understand that we cannot restate it in clause 17. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 18 and 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Short title, commencement and extent

Hilary Benn: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 9, line 8, leave out subsection (6).
 The amendment will remove the subsection on Lords privilege. I hope that it will give the Committee some satisfaction to know that we shall all have agreed to one amendment, albeit that it is a Government amendment. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Hilary Benn: I rise to thank you, Mr. Griffiths, for the way in which you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Amess, have chaired our deliberations. I am glad that it has been the kind of marathon that I can cope with and not the sort that you have obviously experienced. Indeed, following my remarks on the programme motion, I discovered that you once ran two marathons back to back on two consecutive days. That shows a commitment that I could not possibly match. We are very grateful for your guidance and support.
 I take the opportunity to thank all members of the Committee for their contributions to our deliberations, for the manner in which the amendments were moved and for the nature of the discussions that we have had. I, for one, look forward to returning to some of them on Report.

Caroline Spelman: I add my thanks to you, Mr. Griffiths, for your chairmanship, and I hope that you will extend my thanks to your co-Chairman, Mr. Amess, who was subjected to one of our protracted, albeit important, debates on clause 1, when we focused on the aims and objectives of the Bill.
 The hon. Member for Richmond Park, who is not present, gave me cause for concern at the outset; to my astonishment, she described us as chums. However, the Committee has been conducted in a good spirit of co-operation, which proves that she was right and that it is possible to scrutinise legislation without unnecessary acrimony or point scoring. There was little of that, and our exchanges, including many contributions by Labour Back Benchers—I hope that they found them satisfying—allowed good discussion of all the issues.

Norman Lamb: This has been my first experience of a Standing Committee, and I can almost say that it has been a pleasurable experience. I add my thanks to you, Mr. Griffiths, for your chairmanship.

Win Griffiths: May I say, on running two marathons back to back, that the second one was much slower—unlike the Committee, which has consistently worked better and quicker as we moved through the Bill, such is its expertise.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock. {**vert_rule**}